[adma]

Skydone required the demolition of the Spadina Roundhouse. That was probably done with the understanding that the John Street Roundhouse would be preserved.

Forgot; thanks. (And I thnk the old Rees punping station was also sacrifices as part of the deal.)

 

[adma]

Ok I looked it up: Eclipse Whitewear manufactured women's and children underwear. Fascinating. Did they invent underwear, it this important in some way? Were Toronto panties distinctive or fashion forward at the time? Why has this legacy faded from our consciousness?

Now you're *really* going into "bored kid in the back seat" mode.

Oh well, to extend the York Sq/Hazelton metaphor, it's like trying to drill a hung-around-regularly-at-the-Book-Cellar-back-in-the-day sensibility into the noggin of a "Yorkville Fitness & Whole Foods" type...

 

[buildup]

Now you're *really* going into "bored kid in the back seat" mode.

Oh well, to extend the York Sq/Hazelton metaphor, it's like trying to drill a hung-around-regularly-at-the-Book-Cellar-back-in-the-day sensibility into the noggin of a "Yorkville Fitness & Whole Foods" type...

Its not where you buy your books, its what you read that counts. You're 99% focused on the arts, but I've read more widely (and bought more books than you). Sorry to be so crass, but since you brought it up...

 

[freshcutgrass]

I really don't see how York Square has much relevancy to M&G. I liked that period in the 70's where Toronto was doing a lot of adaptive re-use of victorian/edwardian houses by incorporating-enhancing with contemporary modernism of the day, rather than demolishing-replacing. Yorkville was defined by this. But it is just no longer a viable economic scheme, given real estate prices and potential profits. I don't think the style is popular any more either. Ironically, I doubt a lot of it would get approved, as it usually represented seriously altering the original details. I'll miss York Square, but I don't see any parallels to the M&G project.

Regarding UrbanShocker, I miss his thoughtful contributions. He vanished because of a petty suspension.

He hasn't just vanished from the forum....I used top run into him down at SLAM almost every weekend, and I have not seen at all in probably around a year. I hope everything is ok with him. I suspect he has possibly been on an extended trip to the UK?

 

[TonyV]

…

Regarding UrbanShocker, I miss his thoughtful contributions. He vanished because of a petty suspension.

...

I am able to say with some authority that UrbanShocker is not interested in posting in this forum anymore for reasons other than what you suggest. We might say that Shocker is just "not a fanboy" of the development industry in general, as it happens.

Further, I can also say that Shocker is quite well and happy in retirement. I bump into him regularly at the opera and out and about.

 

[Tewder]

[...] In any case, the excesses of wholesale urban redevelopment was well past best before by the 70s.

Taken by itself, the current proposal is no less audacious, with the exception of tighter control over carte blanche redevelopment.

AoD

+1

... and I would add that the

tighter control over carte blanche redevelopment

is what makes this new vision audacious - from an urban point of view at least - which is what the block-rasers here are overlooking.

 

[Tewder]

And I bring this up because there seems to be a certain UT P&C element these days that's akin to discussion being hijacked by real estate/development industry lobby groups--and indeed, it's that kind of sneaking suspicion that in part explains why you don't see an Urban Shocker around these parts anymore...

Well so what? Why flee? Why not stay and be part of the dialogue?

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

+1

... and I would add that the is what makes this new vision audacious - from an urban point of view at least - which is what the block-rasers here are overlooking.

Well, given the context of not redeveloping the western part of the block, the rest of the proposal is fairly carte blanche, with facade preservation contemplated for only one of the buildings (Anderson). A lesser project probably probably have a far harder time getting away with that.

AoD

 

[adma]

I am able to say with some authority that UrbanShocker is not interested in posting in this forum anymore for reasons other than what you suggest. We might say that Shocker is just "not a fanboy" of the development industry in general, as it happens.

Such was my point re the "hijacked by lobbyists". Well, maybe not *paid* lobbyists; but let's just call it, "Glaeser Nation". The magnetism of a "development forum" attracting "development geeks", and all the "99 44/100% male" aridity that implies (i.e. it kinda flashes back to the critique of the vehement "Keesmaat-bashing" around these parts).

 

[freshcutgrass]

I would hardly characterize Mirvish, nor Gehry as typical representation of the "development industry". In fact, I think it is because they aren't that may have contributed to the hard time they have had.

 

[adma]

However, by being "atypical", they "provide cover". To use language that an Elliot Rodger defender might understand, they're a Trojan horse for those Glaeser-loving Virile Urbanists who resent how preservationism and fetishizing-the-old have emasculated and "feminized" architecture and urbanism over the past half century.

And I found the post that conveys that gendered context perfectly (and it's more about "conveyance", than about what lesouris really is--typically, "virile urbanists" wouldn't have such self-awareness)

I'm really liking this revised proposal. A warning that the following is extremely subjective, perhaps to excess, but here goes.

I never hated the original design. To me, it seemed to have this hyper-masculinity about it that was incredibly alluring. I saw some echoes of the Futurist Manifesto in it - tearing down the old for the sake of the new, relentlessly male, phallic, a departure from the tired convention of the refined box so trumpeted by the establishment critics. There was little regard for context, which, I must admit, can be appealing at times if executed properly. Had it been proposed on another site with less baggage - this is, after all, a fairly functional urban stretch - I would have been a more vocal supporter. The proposed loss of the POW was too much for me.

It's much easier for me to get behind this new proposal. I'm quite pleased that the POW is to be saved and that the area's existing urban bones are to be respected. I don't think we've seen the project's masculinity diminished either - though the flashy six-pack abs are traded in for a more sophisticated, say, collection of fine whisky. It's a more mature proposal for a more mature neighbourhood in a mature city, and that's to be lauded. It's still an extravagant proposal by any stretch - its height and heft unprecedented in the recent history of the city (or country, for that matter). I'm looking forward to seeing it further evolve.

Just as an aside, and I hesitate to bring this up, but the personal attacks on Keesmaat in this thread and elsewhere on the forum are starting to turn me off in a big way. I wonder if there isn't some lingering misogyny motivating some of the, well, viciousness of the attacks. She seems to be doing her job fairly capably, if not in a way immune to criticism (which no public servant should be above). But for the life of me, I can't recall any male bureaucrat provoking such scorn for so little scandal.

 

[freshcutgrass]

However, by being "atypical", they "provide cover".

That could be a valid theory if it weren't for the fact that it was the Mirvish's that essentially pioneered heritage preservation by purchasing and restoring the Royal Alex, as well as pioneering the Entertainment District as well.

Nice try though.

I'm afraid the plain truth is that this saga is less about Trojan horses and more about gift horses.

 

[buildup]

It's certainly time to move on. I'll just say the personal attacks on Keesmat may have seemed excessive, but were not misoginist nor atypical in the political context. She was seen as the key individual obstructing arguably the most thrilling project many of us have ever seen proposed in this city. To see a chief planner taking such a conservative appoach and criticizing the design as "trite" was profoundly dispiriting. Anyway, water under the bridge.

 

[buildup]

Adma, you continue to imply those favouring original M+G are unable to appreciate mundane contextual details. My personal challenge has been articulating those points. I love streets like Annette, Weston Road north of Eglinton, Greenwood and hundreds of others whose names I dont even know. And its hard to describe context since its basically hundreds of nameless details. Those neighbourhoods are outside this discussion.

My view is this particular stretch doesn't have any of that charm.

The side walk experience isn't good. Its already completely surrounded by new towers (East, West, South). It seemed like the perfect place to do a bold experiment in modern street level design.

Aslop once said certain CONFINED urban zones should do away with design rules completely just to see what happens when human ingenuity is given free reign. He obviously didnt mean it literally, but a certain amount of creative choas is refreshing. Why not an area already hacked up like this one? Why play is so safe.

 

[adma]

That could be a valid theory if it weren't for the fact that it was the Mirvish's that essentially pioneered heritage preservation by purchasing and restoring the Royal Alex, as well as pioneering the Entertainment District as well.

Nice try though.

I'm afraid the plain truth is that this saga is less about Trojan horses and more about gift horses.

But that's exactly how by being "atypical", they "provide cover". Virile urbanists *adore* those kinds of credentialed "gift horses".

And remember: whether you like it or not, Mirvish "bent".